TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision on interest-free advances</h1> <h3>DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s JAYTICK INTERMEDIATES PVT LTD</h3> DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s JAYTICK INTERMEDIATES PVT LTD - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act for interest-free advances.2. Adjustment of Excise Duty on closing stock under Section 145A of the IT Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act:Transactions with M/s. Baroda Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (BIPL):- The assessee company had a service contract with BIPL, where it provided raw materials and paid service charges of Rs. 1,75,000/- per month. The assessee also gave an interest-free deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs to BIPL.- The Assessing Officer (A.O.) argued that the interest-free deposit should be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the service charges under Section 40A(2)(a) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b). The A.O. disallowed Rs. 5,25,000/- as excessive payment.- The CIT(A) held that the transactions were not with specified persons under Section 40A(2)(b) because the shareholding did not meet the 'substantial interest' threshold. The CIT(A) also found the payments reasonable and beneficial for the assessee's business, thus deleting the disallowance.Transactions with M/s. Yuletide Industries Pvt. Ltd. (YIPL):- The assessee had a similar arrangement with YIPL, with a deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs and service charges of Rs. 27 lakhs. The A.O. calculated a disallowance of Rs. 1,50,853/- based on notional interest and service charges.- The CIT(A) again ruled that Section 40A(2)(b) did not apply as the shareholding did not meet the 'substantial interest' criteria. The CIT(A) found the payments reasonable and beneficial, deleting the disallowance.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the A.O.'s calculations were hypothetical and lacked substantial evidence. There was no nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free loans, and no substantial interest in the business of the specified persons. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowances for both years.2. Adjustment of Excise Duty on closing stock under Section 145A of the IT Act:Assessment Year 2005-06:- The A.O. made adjustments for excise duty not accounted for in the Profit & Loss Account, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 4,59,676/-.- The CIT(A) referred to the Madras High Court decision in English Electric Co of India Ltd., which held that excise duty should not be included in the value of unsold finished goods. The CIT(A) deleted the addition.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal acknowledged the amendment in Section 145A effective from 01.04.1999, requiring adjustments for taxes, duties, etc., to bring goods to their location and condition as of the valuation date. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to make suitable adjustments as per law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.Conclusion:- The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals concerning disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b) for both assessment years, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions.- The Tribunal set aside the issue of excise duty adjustment to the A.O. for re-evaluation as per the amended Section 145A, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 